The Middelgrunden wind farm - SPOK PowerPoint - sida middelgrunden.pdf · –EU Offshore Wind...
Transcript of The Middelgrunden wind farm - SPOK PowerPoint - sida middelgrunden.pdf · –EU Offshore Wind...
October 2, 2006 SPOK ApS #2
Disposition
• Introduction • Why wind turbines Copenhagen?• Planning process• Conflicts of interest• Environment Impact Assessment• Construction • Basic information and references
October 2, 2006 SPOK ApS #3
SPOK ApS - Hans Chr. SorensenSustainable Projects - Offshore Know-how
Project management RTD projects–Ocean wave energy (Wave Dragon)–Offshore wind (Middelgrunden 40 MW and Samsø 23 MW)–Evaluation–EU and DEA projects, Biomass RTD–Building process optimization
• Committees –Danish Wind Turbine Owners Association, board–Danish Energy Agency; Grid integration of RES–EU Offshore Wind Concerted Action; Work Package leader–EU Wave Energy Network; Work Package leader
Blegdamsvej 4 DK-2200 Copenhagen N, +45 35360219, [email protected]
October 2, 2006 SPOK ApS #4
Wave Dragon principle
Turbine outlet
Reservoir
Waves overtopping the doubly curved ramp
The Wave Dragon is a slack-moored wave energy converter that can be deployed alone or in parks wherever a sufficient wave climate and a water depth
of more than 25 m is found.
Climate Power production24 kW/m 12 GWh/y/unit36 kW/m 20 GWh/y/unit48 kW/m 35 GWh/y/unit
Wave reflector
October 2, 2006 SPOK ApS #5
Why wind turbines Copenhagen?
• Agenda 21• Take responsibility for power production • Power to 32.000 households, 3% of the
electricity consumption in Copenhagen• Wind not too bad offshoreResult:• 8.553 shareholders – mostly single families
October 2, 2006 SPOK ApS #7
Layout for a wind turbine1. Hub controller
2. Pitch cylinder
3. Main shaft
4. Oil cooler
5. Gearbox
6. VMP-Top controller with converter
7. Parking break
8. Service crane
9. Transformer
10. Blade hub
11. Blade bearing
12. Blade
13. Rotor lock system
14. Hydraulic unit
15. Machine foundation
16. Yaw gears
17. OptiSpeed™ generator
18. Ultra-sonic sensors
Source Vestas
October 2, 2006 SPOK ApS #9
0
50
100
150
200
250
before 90199
0199
119
9219
93199
4199
519
9619
9719
98199
9200
020
0120
02
Other/unknown Private/industry Coops Utility
MW
Invite all kinds of people to participate
October 2, 2006 SPOK ApS #10
Planning process
Killer assumptions:
• Wind resource • Spatial planning• Visual impact• Vast deposit
October 2, 2006 SPOK ApS #12
Planning Issues - Principle in DK• Country- and site-specific regulations
and restrictions– in DK: first overall sites for 150
MW test farms, then detailed
Middelgrunden 40 MW Copenhagen
October 2, 2006 SPOK ApS #13
- Visual Impact : Copenhagen 400 years ago
Wind
energy
is
not a
new
energy
source
in a
city
October 2, 2006 SPOK ApS #14
3 rows in the north part –or one line over the whole length
Technical optimisation – visual impact
October 2, 2006 SPOK ApS #16
Visual Impact – two alternatives
27 turbines in 3 rows
20 turbines in a curved line
October 2, 2006 SPOK ApS #17
Visual Impact
• Distance to shore (<45km)• Farm and turbine layout• Marking lights
Copenhagen today, Middelgrunden 40 MW 5 km away
October 2, 2006 SPOK ApS #18
Waste deposit
• Deposit for waste for more than 100 years• In1900-ies harbour sludge (Hg from mirrors
and industry)• I 1985 the discover of the sludge disappears• General conclusion: don’t move more than
necessary
October 2, 2006 SPOK ApS #19
Po s itio n Prø ve dy bde Lag tykkels e Glø de tab Bly Krom Ko bber Zink Kviks ølv
Nr. cm cm % a f TS mg /kg TS
1.1Mx1 30+80 0-88 25,8 140 89 3,7
2 .1M5 210 178-245 1,2 0 ,58
3
4.2M1 20 0-33 2,3 46 42
4.2Mx2 70+120 54-135 1,6 30 0,43
4.3Mx1 30+80 20-118 1,7 32 45
5.2Mx2 70+120 56-152 3,2 26 0,43
6.1M1 20 0-30 0,9 31
6.3M1 10 0-29 1,3 23
7
8.1M2 70 48-88 2,6 44 0,58
8.2Mx2 60+110 35-130 1,8 20 0,49
9 - 12
13.0Mx1 13.2: 10 / 13 .3: 20 0-22 / 0 -41 1,5 150 1000 140 48
14.0Mx1 14.1: 10 / 14 .2: 10 0-27 / 0 -19 1,0 220
15+16 Der er ikke foretaget analyser a f bundprøver, idet G I’s sed imentbeskrive lse viser a t p ro filen e r na turlig t a flejre t og denvurderes a t være upåvirket .
17 .3M1 10 0-15 0,93 33
18 - 20
2.1 Mx1 10+50 0-54 2,02 34
2.2 M1 25 0-35 6,0 52 35 140 1,0
Ikke forurenet 1 < 20 <20 <20 <75 <0,25
Forurenet 1 20-50 20-50 20-40 75-100 0,25-0,5
Kraftig t fo ru renet 1
> 50 >50 >40 >100 >0,5 1 Miljøstyrelsens vejledning 1983
Waste deposit
October 2, 2006 SPOK ApS #20
Public project presentation & communication strategies
• Information (passive, although consultation requested)
• Planning participation (involvement in decision making process)
• Financial participation (e.g. share owners)
October 2, 2006 SPOK ApS #21
The public hearings
• Contact to all relevant bodies including NGOs• June-August 1998 new visualization 20 turbines• Feasibility acceptable as the turbines increases from
1.5 MW to 2 MW• July-September 1999 EIA DK & SE
– Comprehensive analyzes off pollution, sound, water flow, suspension of sediments etc.
– Geological survey each site for foundation– New analyzes of flora, fauna and archaeology
October 2, 2006 SPOK ApS #23
Conflicts of interest
• Flow to the Baltic• Birds• Sea mammals• Sedimentation• Collision risk• Navigation risk, radar
October 2, 2006 SPOK ApS #27
• Limited experience offshore– Dutch near-shore– Utgrunden / Yttre
Stengrund, SE – Tunoe Knob, DK
* Feeding possibilities more important, but results only valid for wintering eiders
Environmental Impact -Birds
October 2, 2006 SPOK ApS #28
• Potential effects: collision, ousting, barrier• Parameters:
– species– migratory paths – site (distance to shore, water depth, feeding
possibilities, natural reef effect, ...)– time of day/year– weather– noise– layout (farm/turbines, incl. marking lights)
Environmental Impact -Birds
October 2, 2006 SPOK ApS #29
Ytgrunden SEOne million seabirds migrates every season1) Collision 2) Route 3) Food-searching 4) Darkness/fog
Environmental Impact -Birds
source
October 2, 2006 SPOK ApS #30
Ytgrunden SE
Barrier effect 1• Eider migration
before and after the establishment of the wind farm
Environmental Impact –Birds
Source
October 2, 2006 SPOK ApS #31
Environmental Impact - Mammals
• Visual impacts?• Noise & vibration impacts?• Change of biotope?
Bockstigen:
How a seal is resting
Rødsand: How a seal is moving
October 2, 2006 SPOK ApS #33
Conflicts of InterestShips
• Collision risk• Effects difficult to predict
– type of ship (cargo)– size of ship
• Positive effect?* Mitigation measures
– marking lights (but...)– emergency
procedures– standardized,
“reliable”risk analyses
October 2, 2006 SPOK ApS #34
Conflicts of Interest
Radar• Potential problem (e.g. UK/SE):
Moving blades causing false signals/disturbance, depending on– system (age, GPS, satellite)– turbine tower– number of turbines
* No serious problems if exact coordinates of wind turbines are known - unless radar equipment is surrounded by turbines.
October 2, 2006 SPOK ApS #37
Environmental Impact Assessment
• Fauna and flora• Noise• Sedimentation• Oil spill• Special attention during construction
October 2, 2006 SPOK ApS #38
3 phases1. Construction*2. Operational3. Dismantling*
* temporary effects,– sedimentation
(flora, fauna)– noise/vibrations
(birds, mammals, fish)
• avoid sensitive periods
October 2, 2006 SPOK ApS #41
Noise and Vibrations
• Airborne Noise• Underwater noise and vibrationsExamples:PorpoisesProduce pulsed sounds: 2 kHz (perhaps
communication)Echo localization sounds: 13-130 kHzFair hearing: 1-150 kHzGood hearing: 8-30 kHzSpeckled Seals:Produce sound: 0,1-40 kHzFair hearing: 0,1-60 kHzGood hearing: 1-50 kHzFish: 0-130 kHz
* More studies needed!
October 2, 2006 SPOK ApS #45
Consideration for failure, oil spill
The submarine cables was of the PEX type (without oil) The 690V/30kV transformer of the dry type
(without oil)
October 2, 2006 SPOK ApS #60
Conclusions
• EIA must be conducted, careful planning essential• Environmental concerns:
– especially birds, but additional studies needed
• Conflicts of interest:– radar effects– collision risk (ships, low-flying aircraft)
– fishermen must be compensated• Social acceptance: Early, active public involvement • Policies: Varies between different countries and even within
specific countries
October 2, 2006 SPOK ApS #61
Sources & ReferencesSources, e.g.• EIAs (Danish and Swedish projects, so far)
• EU EIA Directive and amendment http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/eia/full-legal-text/9711.htm
• NOVEM/Ecofys (Inventory of Policy, Regulations, Administrative Aspects and Current Projects for Offshore Wind Energy in Northern Europe, www.ecofys.nl)
• Two papers from the EWEA special topic conference Brussels, Dec. 2001, session Environment (Stefen Nielsen, DEA and H. C. Sørensen, Karin Hammerlund et al)
• Offshore Wind Farms (Guidance note for EIA in the UK www.mecu.gov.uk), “similar” in DK (www.ens.dk in Danish)
• CA-OWEE Report: www.offshorewindenergy.org
October 2, 2006 SPOK ApS #62
Legal Background (1)• ESPOO convention• EIA - Environmental Impact Assessment• ES/EIS - Environmental (Impact) Statement
EU Council Directive 85/337/EEC, June 85Amended in Council Directive 97/11/EC, March 1997:
“Article 3The environmental impact assessment shall identify, describe and assess in an appropriate manner, in the light of each individual case... the direct and indirect effects of a project on the following factors: · human beings, fauna and flora; · soil, water, air, climate and the landscape; · material assets and the cultural heritage; • the interaction between the factors mentioned...”
October 2, 2006 SPOK ApS #63
Legal Background (2)• Regarding installations for the harnessing of wind power for energy
production (wind farms) the Member States shall determine whether the project shall be made subject to an assessment through:
– (a) a case-by-case examination, or
– (b) thresholds or criteria set by the Member State
• All offshore projects expected to be subjects of EIA
• Alternatives and mitigation measures must be included
• Public: “Member States shall ensure that any request for development consent and any information gathered... are made available to the public within a reasonable time in order to give the public concerned the opportunity to express an opinion before the development consent is granted.”
October 2, 2006 SPOK ApS #64
The cooperative
• Options 50 DKK each shear - no refund– 4,250 DKK/1,000 kWh/y– 600 DKK/y first 6 years
• Full payment of shares starts November 1999• 30,000 shares reduced to 20,000 • TV spots from February 2000• Sigurd on the Town Square April 29th 2000• Visit to building site May 2000 - 1,600 participants• Article in Jyllands Posten September 17th 2000• All 40,500 shares sold September 18th 2000
October 2, 2006 SPOK ApS #65
Time table
• EU pre-qualification February - August 1999
• Tender turbines, foundations and grid October 1999
• Signing of contract December 1999
• Casting concrete April - August 2000
• Work on sea bed June - September 2000
• Placing caissons September - November 2000
• Placing turbines October - December 2000
• Placing grid connection November 2000
• Upstart production December - March 2000
October 2, 2006 SPOK ApS #66
Middelgrunden Wind Farm 40 MW - Facts
Power 40 MW
Hub height 64 meter
Rotor diameter 76 meter
Total height 102 meter
Foundation depth 4 to 8 meter
Foundation weight (dry) 1,800 tons
Wind speed at 50-m height 7.2 m/s
Power output 89/100 GWh/y
Distance to shore 3.5 km
October 2, 2006 SPOK ApS #67
Middelgrunden Wind Farm 40 MW
Final costs = Budget
The total investment in the project M EUR
Wind turbines 26.11
Foundations including changes after the tender to reduce the working period
9.92
Grid connection, offshore 4.56
Design, advice and planning 2.15
Wind turbine cooperative 0.54
Other costs 1.61
Total 44.9
October 2, 2006 SPOK ApS #68
0
50
100
150
200
1980 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00 '02 '04
PJ
Small-scale CHP Units Large-scale CHP Units
Autoproducers Windmills and Hydro Power Units
Large-scale Units, Power Only
Electricity Production by Type of Producer
Danish energy mix
Source: www.ens.dk